After deputies arrived, they questioned the man who produced a permit for the handgun. According to authorities, since the man made no verbal threats or gestures, they couldn’t arrest him or ask him to leave.

Forsythe Sheriff Duane Piper said that he didn’t believe the parents and children were in any danger but, even though the man was within his rights to carry the gun, he found the gun carriers conduct inappropriate.

So at least the Sheriff thinks that wandering around a public park waving a gun around is "inappropriate", he just doesn't think it is illegal.

Carrying a gun in a holster may not be a threat. But this was "brandishing" and I would interpret it as a threat. The line between waving a gun around and pulling the trigger is very thin. Much thinner than the line between carrying it in a holster and waving it around. Maybe the police felt that their presence calmed the man down, but if I were one of the parents, I would not have been reassured.

Carrying a gun is a personal act. But when you frighten people into taking their kids home from a scheduled game, it ceases to be personal and starts invading other people's freedom. I do not think a person has the right to do that.

Minardil wrote:Yes, police were called, and they arrived and questioned the man.

A quote from the article:

After deputies arrived, they questioned the man who produced a permit for the handgun. According to authorities, since the man made no verbal threats or gestures, they couldn’t arrest him or ask him to leave.

Forsythe Sheriff Duane Piper said that he didn’t believe the parents and children were in any danger but, even though the man was within his rights to carry the gun, he found the gun carriers conduct inappropriate.

So at least the Sheriff thinks that wandering around a public park waving a gun around is "inappropriate", he just doesn't think it is illegal.

Well, in that case, it seems to be a case of a poorly worded law - Lord knows we have hundreds of them around - and though what the man was doing was stupid, dangerous, and at the very least ill advised, was not actually illegal and so no action could be taken.

So, just a badly worded law. And I wouldn't call it cause to broaden the scope of the argument beyond the incident. The law in Georgia is not indicative of gun laws throughout the US.

I picked that quote because I wanted to show that the parents were clearly feeling threatened and to point out the inherent problems that having both "carry anywhere" where even morons are allowed to be morons with no legal consequence and SYG create. Now a reasonable person would say, as you have that the law needs work. But my question to you is, what makes you think the law isn't working as intended?We'll have to wait and see if the Ga legislature addresses this problem to find out. My feeling is that the gun owners rights will trump the rights of everyone else to feel safe in public as has been the pattern so far.

The people of GA and their representatives will have something to think about if someone is showing off their gun, and another person feels threatened enough to shoot. If there is a trial, I will bet that the the shooter will not be convicted of anything related to the shooting (maybe of not having the "right" permit). So, what happens to the law then? Someone takes it into his own hands and does not get punished for it. Does a person carrying his gun around feel more or less safe? More or less "free?"

If the law is not changed, I feel that this scenario will be around to talk about.

I am writing to bring your attention to the ongoing situation in northeastern Clark County which has caused many of my constituents to fear for their safety.

Residents of Bunkerville and the surrounding area have expressed concern over the continual presence of multiple out-of-state, armed militia groups that have remained in the community since the BLM halted its actions to impound the cattle of Cliven Bundy earlier this month. (my bold)

My constituents have expressed concern that members of these armed militia groups:

1. Have set up checkpoints where residents are required to prove they live in the area before being allowed to pass;

2. Have established a persistent presence along federal highways and state and county roads; and

3. Have established an armed presence in or around community areas including local churches, school, and other community locations.

We must respect individual constitutional liberties, but the residents of and visitors to Clark County should not be expected to live under the persistent watch of an armed militia. Their continual presence has made residents feel unsafe and maligned a quiet community’s peaceful reputation.

Residents have expressed their desire to see these groups leave their community. I appreciate the responsiveness and accessibility you and your office have provided during this difficult time for those directly impacted by the situation. I urge you to investigate these reports and to work with local leaders to ensure that their concerns are addressed in a manner that allows the community to move forward without incident.

Sincerely,

Steven Horsford Member of Congress

I get the impression that the sheriff is not in a big rush to confront the militia.This, to me, is infuriating. I mean, where the bleeping hell do we live? Are we in some 3rd world hellhole with armed militias setting up petty fiefdoms wherever they want, enforcing their will on the locals and a weak central government that's powerless to stop them? Has anyone talked to the governor about sending in National Guard? If these thugs were stopping me and asking for ID, I’d call the bleeping Guard myself.

It IS, however, indicative of where Guns Rights activists want the laws to be.

It is representative of how a specific group of gun rights activists want things to be, not the whole or majority of all gun rights activists. That's like me pointing to the idiot I sat next to in freshman political science class 15 years ago at Rutgers is representative of all Liberals and how they want to eliminate the concept of personal property. It just isn't so even if he happens to be loud enough for the lot of them.

Glasshouse: That's not an example of "gun nut" abuse but an example of an extra-legal armed militia. They're breaking the law at least once there by blocking traffic through public roads, probably another by doing so with weapons in evidence which could constitute armed assault or threats. This isn't about gun rights activists, it's about people breaking the laws as they exist.

The culprit here is Gun Culture. The idea some people have that they just can't go anywhere or do anything without their guns being handy, and whenever they encounter a problem - such as a d-bag blasting awful music from the next car over - their impulse is to reach for their guns.

Agreed.

I would think the situation at the little league diamond should have been considered 'disrupting the peace' or something.

In Wisconsin there has been a similar issue. Several men have been going into parks, farmer's markets & such carrying AR-15 riffles for 'self defense'. These are small towns where there is very, very low crime where one feels the need to 'defend' themselves with a riffle. Maybe they need to head down to a west Chicago neighborhood or something. It's intimidation.

I'd say the guy in the park, the Bundy militias and the idiots who bring AR-15's to the farmers market in Wi. have quite a lot in common. They're all examples of bullies out to intimidate the general public because they can. Male divas, who like to strut and preen around with their guns in public.

Of course the ones around the Bundy ranch are more of a threat because they're all gathered together in one place and that gives them an unhealthy re-enforcement to their paranoia . And there are photos of them drawing down on federal employees in the performance of their jobs with sniper rifles, so I'd say that it's pretty clear they have broken the law.

The authorizes should be doing something about all of these idiots wherever and when ever they occur but they seem to be intimidated too, which bodes ill for the rest of us IMO. But on the "good" side, (good being a relative term) from reading Wonkette, I’m not sure anything needs to be done about the Bundy crowd. It sounds like if we leave them alone they’ll have a ‘Wingnut of the Flies’ situation, and they’ll all kill one another off – which is marginally better than them killing anyone else - hopefully, there will be no locals as casualties.

Minardil wrote:The culprit here is Gun Culture. The idea some people have that they just can't go anywhere or do anything without their guns being handy, and whenever they encounter a problem - such as a d-bag blasting awful music from the next car over - their impulse is to reach for their guns.

It is representative of how a specific group of gun rights activists want things to be, not the whole or majority of all gun rights activists. That's like me pointing to the idiot I sat next to in freshman political science class 15 years ago at Rutgers is representative of all Liberals and how they want to eliminate the concept of personal property. It just isn't so even if he happens to be loud enough for the lot of them.

I think the difference here is that this "specific group of gun rights activists" aren't just a tiny minority out on the fringe. They are a powerful driving force with enough political clout to get laws passed which conform to their views.

Has your classmate been able to enact legislation eliminating the concept of personal property?

I think it is veryt likely that this carrying a gun idea will grow--like the housing crisis andother thgs in this country-- and then will blow up in a big shootout which will motivate people toexamine the issue and put a stop to the problem.

It would be interesting to see if the gun toters are merely making up for smaller endowments elsewhere.

It would be interesting to see if the gun toters are merely making up for smaller endowments elsewhere.

I think the difference here is that this "specific group of gun rights activists" aren't just a tiny minority out on the fringe. They are a powerful driving force with enough political clout to get laws passed which conform to their views.

It is a growing issue. Those who make money selling guns/weaponry gleefully feed into the fear, motivated by profit, not need. They are (not always, but often enough as not) appealing to the lowest common denominator. I am not against hunting riffles or even personal small handguns, but people do not need arsenals of weaponry and AR-14's (or whatever) to tote downtown to the local league ballpark or the farmer's market. They are idiots, plain and simple. Intimidating average citizens who pose virtually no threat to them. Easy enough to be 'Rambo' when the pickin's are easy.

Last edited by RoseMorninStar on Fri May 02, 2014 1:11 pm, edited 1 time in total.

portia wrote:It would be interesting to see if the gun toters are merely making up for smaller endowments elsewhere.

You see this in every gun thread. Disgusting but predictable and for some reason considered acceptable.

Predictable maybe.. but seriously, are these people so afraid.. so cowardly.. so needing to strut and intimidate, that they show up in places where they are almost certainly not going to be confronted with violence? It's no surprise we don't hear about such incidents in the really rough cities.. because that would likely be a more even playing field. If they are so eager to brandish weapons 'in defense', they are free to join the military. While I wouldn't personally use the statement as an argument, I can understand why it is often referenced.

One, you probably know several gun owners and probably don't even know it, because in general gun owners don't fit the stereotype perpetuated by the hoplophobes.

Two, having been in the military I can tell you that you do not generally carry a firearm. Only certain people do, and only under certain circumstances. When you read about a shooting at a military base you should know it is not an example of a shooting where everyone is armed but instead a shooting where everyone is not armed.

Three, you merely said what portia wrote wasn't an argument. You never touched on the appropriateness or lack thereof.

I see the SCOTUS has refused to hear arguments on the constitutionality of New Jersey's strict carry laws.

Don't know how strict carry laws are throughout PA but in Philadelphia they are very strict; and it's a felony to carry without a permit within the city limits. We had an incident on campus recently ... stupid kid wanted to make a gun-lover's point, I guess, and succeeded instead to sink his career and his life. It didn't make the news (thank goodness) because he was arrested so fast (thank goodness).

There is a fairly constant undertow of crime on our urban campuses, including gun crime, so the city police don't seem to be very successful in curtailing the distribution of illegal weapons. But at least we don't have groundswell approval of gun violence from the population. I can't imagine any of the Philly campuses (or surrounding suburban campuses) approving guns on campus as U. of Arizona did. And now I read that U of A wants to approve concealed carry on campus. What competent prof who values his/her life is going to want to teach there? Freudian pop-psych aside, the need to be armed while inside your own community is surely evidence of pathology. We want to coax people away from thinking that way about conflict-resolution, don't we?

This is another area where progressives wring their hands in despair instead of articulating the higher principle that should be pursued. Of course we should not be arresting people for what they think (e.g. pathologically violent fantasies) but we should be campaigning to change the way they think. I had a unique opportunity some years ago to sit in on a conflict resolution session in our Philadelphia County Prison, a max security facility. All of the inmates present at the session were serving life sentences for multiple homicides (hand-picked for this particular event). And I was thinking while I sat there, gee, it's a little bit late for this, isn't it?

Hilary Clinton speaks out on Gun Culture, basically saying that "Hey, it's probably not a good idea to take guns everywhere all the time".

She will now be subjected to a blizzard of death threats from angry gun owners bleating about how their "rights" are being taken away because she suggested they not bring guns to the movie theater. They will not understand how their behavior validates Ms Clinton's point.

Jnyusa wrote:Unless [responsible + gun owner] really is the empty set we suspect it to be.

I personally don't believe it to be an empty set, though it certainly is a very quiet segment of the population, that seems to be either content to let the crazies represent the face of gun ownership in this country, or terrified that they'll be next in the sights if they speak up.

The feds have decided not to pursue federal charges against Zimmerman. I think that reflects the fact that we do not know exactly what happened and what we do know points both ways.The rhetoric has been both strident and one sided. In other words totally not helpful.

Yeah, I read about that a few days ago. I didn't think there was any chance a case like that could be made, but for fairness' sake they had to consider it.

Such a sad incident. The role that race plays in outcomes like this is much too subtle for the broadsword of the law. It's something that we just have to outlive as a culture, I think. One more generation, maybe two. But I do fear that socio-economic stratification will continue to plague us and that racial differences will thus continue to contribute to our perceptions of "what happened" in cases like this. One of Malcolm Gladwell's recent books, David and Goliath, related the experience of the NYPD in addressing successfully a pocket of high poverty/high crime in Brooklyn, using a strategy of intense surveillance of repeat teenage offenders coupled with police-funded and police-distributed aid to their families. But my gosh the expense of it - the volume of man hours that were devoted - and there's no real guarantee of long-term benefits because if there simply are no jobs for people in those pockets of depression the problem will keep re-appearing in each new generation.